Daniel,
You really are so misinformed that it makes it a chore to respond to your posts. But, I'm going to take the time, this time, to enlighten you. You need to make the effort, and put in some major time to do your own research, if you are ever going to rise from the depths of ignorance that you are currently mired in.
What you are suggesting would remove the separation between government and industry. Politicians who profit from industry tend to favor that industry when it comes to legislation, contracts and judgments giving their particular favored firm unfair and unethical advantages over others in that industry. Cheney & Halliburton is a good example of such a marriage between Government and industry that led to contract favoritism, lack of oversight and war profiteering.


The capital disappeared through the invisible tax called inflation. The amount lost is directly proportionate to the amount of goods and services that a dollar would buy in, for example, 1959 as opposed to what a dollar would buy today. Inflation discourages long term saving and encourages borrowing, which helped turn us into a credit based economy.


Again, discouraging saving. One should not have to shuffle around ones capital into risk ventures just to keep ahead of inflation.

Fiat money is always detrimental in the long term. It is always losing value because it is always over printed or electronically transferred. Easy come easy go. It does not matter whether the government over inflates or a central bank over inflates, it is the over inlating that always kills the currency, the economy that it supported and, usually, quite a few people who put their faith into that currency.

Irrelevant. It takes a hell of a lot of research on this topic just to scratch the surface. You'd best get started.

__________________
It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford

Which separation are you referring to? As not for profit business ventures, they can specialize and divide labor with the private sector. However, I can agree that the public sector should concentrate on natural public sector monopolies.

Any capitalist could have invested their capital in such a manner, that it could have appreciated faster than the rate of inflation.

You are only providing anecdotal evidence that could simply be a coincidence. Better fiscal policy can ensure better monetary policy.

I have started. That is a premise you will have to refute to convince me; how many of those economies had central banking services. Simply having a central bank can preclude the situation you describe.

Allright, I have one more thing to say,'

REFLECT on this quote for a while and tell me what it means.....


Robert Hemphill: was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money(1936), Hemphill said this:

"If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible-but there it is."

Really? So no one would be trading goods and services ever again? No one would ever borrow again? It seems a rather simplistic and absurd statement might as well say if everyone was a billionaire apples would cost $10,000.00 each.

Allright, let's try one more quote..........

""People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan.""
— Thomas A. Edison

A MUST READ PIECE

THOMAS EDISON ON GOVERNMENT CREATED DEBT FREE MONEY

And one little tidbit..........

A little History: Right after President Lincoln created greenbacks, (government created currency without debt) This article appeared in the London Times:

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” London Times

Chapter 49 — The History of Banking Control in the United States

Just to derail the the derailment for a second. If drugs were legal, and someone commited a crime while under the influence of drugs, would you be for harsher punishments for said person or would the punishment be the same as someone who commited the same crime but was sober?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

WHY SHOULD IT MATTER?

Substance Use and Treatment

* Half (50%) of convicted jail inmates were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense, down from 59% in 1996.
* Three out of every four convicted jail inmates were alcohol or drugs-involved at the time of their current offense.
* Alcohol use at the time of the offense dropped from 41% (1996) to 35% (2002), while drug use dropped from 35% to 29%.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Offenders Statistics

Do we punish people more severely for being on drugs, or alcohol during a crime now? Why should it change?

i would have to refer you to our current intoxication and crime laws. do we punish someone more harshly for being drunk and robbing someone? how about for being drunk and hitting someone? etc etc. if yes, then certainly prosecute the shit out of them. if no, then no.

He may have been saying that within the context of fiat money. However, his point of view also reflects our more limited understanding of economics, then. For example, we now know there are limits to creating "ample synthetic money" in order to be prosperous.

If you want a real "tragic absurdity", ask those of your viewpoint what mechanism they intend to use, for the services of central banking?

You may have noticed that we have a Drug War that is "not worth a Continental".

You may have also noticed that, as a form of legal tender, the Continental was not worth keeping as the legal tender of the United States. We still have federal reserve notes.

Since I am not electing bankers for their knowledge of banking, when electing politicians as representatives to government, it would mean that we need a gold or silver standard. The only way to ensure that standard would be with commodity money made of gold or silver to comply with section 10 of our US Constitution.

I do not wish to discuss this anymore on this thread. If anyone wants to start a thread on banking and the FED, let me know.

I'll take this as a "no". We actually do have higher punishment for certain things if drugs are involved. If you are in a car accident and someone dies vice if you are drunk when the accident occured there are more serious penalties for it.

So both of you are in agreement that the crime should be punished on their own merit, correct?

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

I can only speak for myself, but yes, I agree that punishment should not be affected by whether or not the criminal was in an altered state of mind. btw, your example was stupid, as drunk driving is a crime.

nice job putting words in my mouth. drunk driving is a crime.

what i asked you was for things like robbery, assault, rape, murder, theft. do we prosecute people who were drunk commiting any of the above any harder than we do sober criminals? if yes then go for it. if no then don't.

My intention was not to put words in your mouth. You quoted a lot of statistics on alcohol related crime. Yes, drunk driving is a crime, but the punishment isn't very strong if that's all you were doing. Most states the first offense is a fine with maybe a short suspension of license. But if you kill someone while DUI that is treated much different than if you kill someone being sober. I think that is fairly close to what was asked. Regarless, I didn't want to focus on that small example. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned it as it only distracted from what my intent was. And that was to only get a 'yes' or 'no' to crimes commited while high.

It was sorta a leading question because I was wondering about your thoughts on that as compared to "hate crimes". They are punished more severly than what the crime would merit if it wasn't racially motivated. Since this doesn't pertain to this thread I'll leave off of this thought.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw